-Caveat Lector- <A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/"> </A> -Cui Bono?- WJPBR Email News List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Peace at any cost is a prelude to war! Thank you all for your support, your prayers, your letters to us and to Congress. Our attention over the next two months is now going to be in the area of legislation. We are proposing a bill that would clarify the law, making it clear that it is illegal to FORCE an American to serve any foreign power against their will, except in times of a war declared by Congress, as set forth in the Constitution. We'll be sending you a copy of that bill as soon as we have a number -- look for it! Daniel New Below is a summary of the 4 February hearing that we have compiled from various news reports. US COURT of APPEALS for the ARMED FORCES Hearing on 4 February 2000 The US Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces heard arguments on Friday in the case of Michael New, the American soldier court-martialed in 1996 for refusing to remove his Army insignia and cap and replace them with those issued by the United Nations. In 1995, Army Specialist Michael New was assigned to the Army's 3rd Infantry Division stationed in Germany when his company was informed that they would be deployed to Macedonia as part of a peacekeeping mission. Those orders came as a result of Bill Clinton's Presidential Decision Directive 25 (PDD 25), a classified document, which New's attorney Hank Hamilton argued before the five judge panel was an illegal and unconstitutional effort by the president to avoid congressional scrutiny. Hamilton also argued that the court martial judge violated New's rights under the Uniform Code of Military Justice by not allowing the defense to present its evidence and declaring that New's refusal was illegal before sending the jury panel into deliberations. Government attorneys argued that New's conviction should stand since "the military lives and dies by soldiers following orders," irrespective of whether they believe certain orders are illegal. Hamilton replied to the court that this issue was settled at Nuremberg. On the morning of October 10, 1995, New's battalion was to report in formation wearing the UN uniform. "No one had given me an answer to my questions regarding the legality of this order," New said, "therefore I showed up in my regulation US Army issued uniform." The remaining 549 soldiers complied and appeared in formation wearing the assigned UN uniform with blue caps and a blue patches replacing the American flag on the right shoulder. New was removed from the parade grounds, informed that he was facing a court-martial and read his rights. Thereafter, the remaining American troops came to attention and saluted General Jehu Engstrom of Finland who would be their military commander for the next six months. Within days of New's removal, letters began arriving on Capitol Hill and at the Pentagon supporting the young soldier's stand. Ten of those letters came from senior sergeants at Ft. Bragg, North Carolina, each of whom proudly wears a green beret. During New's court martial on January 15, 1995, judge LTC Gary Jewell rendered a judgment by declaring that orders to wear the UN insignia were lawful. Jewell refused to allow the defense to present hundreds of pages of evidence. New's attorneys argue that the judge's actions were unconstitutional, that the critical element of defense had been denied. The appeals court decision, the final military review for New's case, is expected within several months. If the court-martial is vacated, the case goes back to the Army, which then has several options, ranging from ordering a new court-martial to awarding an honorable discharge. If the court-martial is upheld, the door is then opened for a petition to the Supreme Court to overturn the decision. **COPYRIGHT NOTICE** In accordance with Title 17 U. S. C. Section 107, any copyrighted work in this message is distributed under fair use without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for nonprofit research and educational purposes only.[Ref. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml ] <A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/">www.ctrl.org</A> DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER ========== CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are not allowed. Substance�not soap-boxing! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'�with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright frauds�is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== Archives Available at: http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ ======================================================================== To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
